We lost this case. We should have won it.

Appealed, but missed the date for filing. This takes a half hour.

There is no right to see the White House fountain.
There is no right to have a White House fountain.
There is no right to have a White House.
There is a right to protest

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS PRESENTATION IS
00:00 Question - Why was the sidewalk closed? [What was the crime?]
The normal pattern of an arrest.
02:00 Options that the police have. Set up a perimeter or not.
There are two things going on
The Regulation: 36CFR7.96 (g.5.vii) last two sentences
The Title of (g) is "Demonstrations"
04:50 Police create a control area (put up tape)
"stopping with a sign in the center zone"
09:00 The First Amendment explained
13:00 except: Time Place Manner
14:45 Traditional Public Forum
15:30 "substantially unobstructed view"
16:30 boldly aimed at protected activity
21:00 Deconflict - The Reviewing Stand across the street
23:00 Mary Grace!! The Presidential Seal rule
25:30 Put the sign down?

Videos of the event are posted in 2019 March
Look at the Blog History to the Right, or here

Added 2019 some videos

1. [video 1]
- Diane Wilson, interview
- the view from across the street after the closing,
- VFW on the curb,
- Diane on the White House lawn,
- Keven Zeese with careless uninformed talk
2. [video 2]
- CodePink, force feeding (Tigue)
- off camera, Diane jumps the fence, some run to her
- Sidewalk closed,
- arrest of Medea,
- VFW stopped from handcuffing himself to the fence,
- and 10 more minutes

84-5271 White House Vigil @118

The purpose of the sentence 7 proviso

"Nor is it any mystery why the Park Service decided to allow non-stationary protests within the center zone, even though such protests will admittedly obscure some of the White House view. Assuming arguendo that a ban on non-stationary protests would have been constitutional, the effect of instituting such a ban would be to demarcate a "no man's land" in the middle of the sidewalk. Protestors on either side of the zone would have considerable difficulty communicating with one another, for they would be prohibited from carrying their signs across the demarcated area. The regulation the Park Service adopted represents a reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of such protestors."

Substantially unobstructed view of the White House

Bingo

The Law

01. What the CFR is(wikipedia)
02. 36CFR7.96 Center Zone: G.5.viii ¶2
03. Federal Register 1985 on the new regulations
04. Freedom of speech (wikipedia) (case law)
05. Strict scrutiny (wikipedia)
06. Intermediate scrutiny (wikipedia)
07. 1972 Grayned v City of Rockford (SC, 70-5106) TPM trigger
08. 1984 Clark v CCNV (wikipedia)
09. 1984 WH Vigil for the ERA v Clark (DC, 84-5271) (Injunction)
10. 1989 Ward v Rock Against Racism (wikipedia) (SC),(2nd Circuit)
11. 1983 Perry Educ. Ass'n v Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, (SC,81-896)
12. 1939 Hague v CIO (wikipedia),(SC,39-0651), the public forum doctrine
13. 1983 US v Mary Grace (SC, 81-1863) and
13. 2013 Hodge v Talkin (DC, 12-00104), demonstration at the SC
14. 1985 US v Mary Grace (DC, 85-5174) Presidential Seal Exception ¶¶9&10

=====
42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Civil Rights violations

Ambiguities in the regulations

1. Walk through the Center Zone vs walk in circles within the Center Zone.
2. Hand held signs vs self-supporting signs.
3. Unobstructed view from where
4. Unobstructed view vs ugly signs
5. Signs that are ugly vs signs are ugly.
6. By the way, why say placards?

From Time Place and Manner

01. The video of the closing of the sidewalk, here.
02. The problems with White House Vigil, here.
03. The Presidential Seal Exception, here.
04. Traditional public forum, and the center of the national stage, here.
05. Compatible use, here. Permits are all the regulation you need.
06. Necessary and Proper, here.
07. Overbroad, here
08. Criminalization of dissent, here.
09. History of arrests, here